Fams‐ace: A combined method to select the best model after remodeling all server models

During Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP7, Pacific Grove, CA, 2006), fams‐ace was entered in the 3D coordinate prediction category as a human expert group. The procedure can be summarized by the following three steps. (1) All the server models were refined and rebuilt utilizing our homology modeling method. (2) Representative structures were selected from each server, according to a model quality evaluation, based on a 3D1D profile score (like Verify3D). (3) The top five models were selected and submitted in the order of the consensus‐based score (like 3D‐Jury). Fams‐ace is a fully automated server and does not require human intervention. In this article, we introduce the methodology of fams‐ace and discuss the successes and failures of this approach during CASP7. In addition, we discuss possible improvements for the next CASP. Proteins 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Single‐body residue‐level knowledge‐based energy score combined with sequence‐profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition , 2004, Proteins.

[2]  C Venclovas,et al.  Processing and analysis of CASP3 protein structure predictions , 1999, Proteins.

[3]  Paul Horton,et al.  Discrimination of outer membrane proteins using support vector machines , 2005, Bioinform..

[4]  Genki Terashi,et al.  Protein structure prediction in CASP6 using CHIMERA and FAMS , 2005, Proteins.

[5]  J. Thornton,et al.  PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures , 1993 .

[6]  D. Baker,et al.  Molecular dynamics in the endgame of protein structure prediction. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  3D-Jury: A Simple Approach to Improve Protein Structure Predictions , 2003, Bioinform..

[8]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles , 1992, Nature.

[9]  D T Jones,et al.  Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  Servers for protein structure prediction. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[11]  Liam J. McGuffin,et al.  Improving sequence-based fold recognition by using 3D model quality assessment , 2005, Bioinform..

[12]  A. Elofsson,et al.  Can correct protein models be identified? , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  Davide Anguita,et al.  Theoretical and Practical Model Selection Methods for Support Vector Classifiers , 2004 .

[14]  J. Thornton,et al.  Stereochemical quality of protein structure coordinates , 1992, Proteins.

[15]  Silvio C. E. Tosatto,et al.  The Victor/FRST Function for Model Quality Estimation , 2005, J. Comput. Biol..

[16]  Yang Zhang,et al.  SPICKER: A clustering approach to identify near‐native protein folds , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality , 2000, Bioinform..

[18]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.

[19]  H. Umeyama,et al.  An automatic homology modeling method consisting of database searches and simulated annealing. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[20]  J Lundström,et al.  Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Enhanced genome annotation using structural profiles in the program 3D-PSSM. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  D Fischer,et al.  Hybrid fold recognition: combining sequence derived properties with evolutionary information. , 1999, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[23]  M J Sippl,et al.  Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. , 1995, Current opinion in structural biology.